Army's great orator and his ocean vision

Not many public leaders pepper their speeches with highbrow literary quotes, but General David Morrison has a different take on some things, writes Michael Brissenden.

Chief of Army David Morrison says he's confident the Australian Army is in good shape as it prepares to transition from the battlefields of the Middle East to the different challenges it will face in the future.

In a speech to the Lowy Institute in Sydney this week, Lieutenant General Morrison stressed the Army's commitment to developing an amphibious capability as it engages in the biggest rethink of the Army's mission statement since the end of the Vietnam war in the 1970s.

But as well as the changes to force structure, General Morrison has warned that unless the Army continues to address the demographic and cultural shifts in Australia it risks becoming an "occupational ghetto".

There are not too many leaders in Australian public life who regularly pepper their speeches with highbrow literary quotes and the theories of some of the world's greatest thinkers, but General Morrison is an exception.

As the Lowy Institute's James Brown noted after the speech, this is man who has the "courage to engage in the battle for ideas".

Not content with the usual nod to Clausewitz, General Morrison often branches out with with less predictable references. In one recent speech, the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard got a mention along with the British commentator Colin Gray and the American writer Max Boot.

One of his favourites is the great sea power theorist of the late 19th century, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and his assertion that the oceans of the world constitute ubiquitous highways. For an army man, General Morrison spends a lot of time thinking about the sea and the national investment required by an island nation like Australia to guarantee security and stability.

Perhaps not surprising then, he pinpoints the development of an amphibious capability as one of the priorities as the Army transitions from the wars in the Middle East.

"The Army's commitment to developing an amphibious capability is par to our force; general plans, part of the developments are taking pace in this great national institution," he said.

General Morrison is obviously well read and like most military leaders he has had to think hard about the nature of violence and war.

The digital age is a challenging time but even though Clausewitz wouldn't recognise the modern battlefield, General Morrison argues the nature of war itself hasn't changed. It is still a violent duel over policy objectives, but technology, he says, has democratised violence.

"If a boy from a village in Helmand province can trigger a device that will destroy your heavily protected modern armoured vehicle you are unlikely to find it useful to ask whether he is a state or non-state actor, or, whether he thinks he is in a war or in an insurgency."

But after more than a decade engaged in the Middle East, Australia's defence force focus is shifting from the dusty villages of Afghanistan and returning to our own region.

Predicting the military operations of the future is an impossible task but it's pretty clear climate change, peacekeeping and humanitarian and disaster relief work will be among the primary areas of engagement.

None of that would be much of a surprise to a man who has spent a life in the Army. But as he prepares to wind up his commission as Army Chief, he says the biggest surprise of his time was the cultural challenges.

He concedes that his term will probably be remembered for a three-and-a-half minute video directed at defence members who demeaned and degraded women. The video went viral and made him an unlikely feminist hero.

"Without doubt, issues pertaining to culture, especially the expansion of opportunities for women to serve alongside men in all appointments without harassment, have dominated public perception of the Army in the last three years," he said.

General Morrison says his motives in leading the way in cultural change were not purely altruistic, but he warns that "unless the Army and the ADF in its entirety stays abreast of the seismic shifts in Australia's demography and ensuing changes in the composition and age of our labour pool, we risk becoming an occupational ghetto, a smokestack industry that has failed to adapt to change in society norms."

"I don't want anyone to misunderstand me, delivering a force that can fight is what I'm about but making it a better organisation in terms of the way we respect each other, our Army, our defence force, and our country, that's the best thing I've ever done."

General Morrison finishes his term as Chief of Army in July.

Michael Brissenden is the ABC's Defence Correspondent based in Canberra. View his full profile here.

Comments (155)

virgil:

21 Feb 2014 8:47:32am

"Predicting the military operations of the future is an impossible task but it's pretty clear climate change, peacekeeping and humanitarian and disaster relief work will be among the primary areas of engagement"...

Come on Michael, throwing all available "defence" forces behind "stopping the boats" is the new mission for our armed forces. And as a result of this policy we might need the army stationed up north too, just in case Indonesia gets a bit sick of our navy making incursions into their waters.

Ben:

21 Feb 2014 9:20:42am

It is a bit trendy to think of Indonesia as a threat to us, but it's not an idea rooted in reality. Their armed forces seem powerful on paper, but their lack of equipment, training and inability to project any significant force across the Timor Sea makes them nothing to us.

Miowarra:

21 Feb 2014 10:02:37am

There are three basic types of army (military) force: - the field force (or war-fighting force, effective in attack and defence.)

- the regime protection force, essential in those regimes where there is a high probability of internal dissent and civil disruption. The aim of this kind of military force is to keep the present regime in power. They specialise in urban warfare and control of the population. They usually aren't much good at force projection against other armies because that hasn't been their training emphasis.

- then there's the ceremonial force which looks very good on parade but isn't well-trained in very much else. They may be the best-equipped (if the equipment looks "cool"). Lots of smaller nations specialise in this type of tourist attraction.

Decide for yourselves just what the emphasis of the Indonesian armed forces might be, but I'm quite pleased that the General is recognising the need for our own amphibious capability. This would give us the option of moving say, our poor old Leopards around our own coastline rather than trucking them on vulnerable low loaders along the highways. They're not air-portable, not with anything in OUR inventory.

In a general sense, increased mobility (land, air OR sea) is a force multiplier and worth having. I could hope we buy a couple of regiments of Russian PT76 amphibious tanks (yes, they're old but the Bradleys are too expensive (must be all those fabulous wage increases in the union dominated US automotive industry, eh?), the British FV432s were never all that reliable and the French .... pfffft! (smell of cheese.

brad:

Draxynnic:

21 Feb 2014 11:35:10am

PT-76 purchase is probably not something that can happen in the current political climate of Russia becoming increasingly adversarial towards "the West" under Putin. I don't think we're likely to actually go all the way back to a cold-war situation, but procurement planners would have to take into account that relying on equipment of Russian origin might give Russia something to hold over us. The BMP-1 might be a possibility, as I think it was manufactured in some former Warsaw Pact nations that are now part of NATO, so they might be able to provide a more secure chain of supply. Even then, though, it might be worthwhile reconfiguring them so they can have as much commonality with existing assets as practical.

gunner :

21 Feb 2014 1:39:26pm

M, the PT76 is not old. it's ancient mate, it was bought into red army service in the 1950's. It's many faults were its thin armour, its low powered main armament, it's unreliable power plant and it inability to ford anything but the calmest of water. I'd a rather have one regiment of those expensive bradleys to 3 regiments of those cheap PT76s anytime.

Frank:

21 Feb 2014 3:19:34pm

Firstly, the Leopards were phased out of the Army in 2007. The 1st Armoured Regiment now operates the Abrams tank. Secondly, the RAAF operates 6 C-17 transport aircraft, which are capable of airlifting the a single Abrams tank per sortie. And finally, the ASLAV has an amphibious capability. While the primary armament is smaller than on the PT76 (25mm vs 76.2mm), I dare say the ASLAV is a more capable vehicle than a Soviet-designed vehicle from the 1950's.

Graham Bell:

21 Feb 2014 6:50:15pm

Well folks, whatever their faults, Soviet/Russian gear tended to have some features lacking in our stuff: robustness - commonality - simplicity - and (wait for it!) cheapness. Alright they are generally very uncomfortable and they do break down - and ours don't??

This is now 2014 and I would not like to be in the crew of a Dinosaur I (Leopard) or Dinosaur II (Abrams) if the other chappies were less than 39 Kilometres away in their shoot-and-scoot ex-mining vehicles and had rocket-assisted rounds for their 155mm guns .... or something even cheaper, nastier and more accurate.

DannyS:

Gawd, who wants to spend how many billions of dollars of various types of land based heavy military equipment?

Why on earth would we want to put tanks on boats and send them north? To blast away at the forces that actually made it onto our soil?

Get those damned Collins class subs fitted out properly and send them north and station our fighter/bombers up there too to negate the threat before it gets anywhere near our shores.

And stop inviting Indonesian Officers to do training courses here and showing them what they need to do to counter us when they get back home.

Not that Indonesia will ever be a real threat to us. Their government and military are riddled with nepotism and corruption and our sycophantic diplomats at DFAT are more concerned with applying the Trade agenda of their remit than Foreign Affairs.

Sotopanna:

21 Feb 2014 10:15:44am

"It is a bit trendy to think of Indonesia as a threat to us"

With the actual presence of Chinese Navy amongst Indonesian Navy proximate to Christmas Island it might be appropriate to reconsider this perspective?China have floated in a new threat and expanded their boundary into what USA regarded as their sphere of influence. This counters USA bases in Australia.Indonesia may well be as incapable as described, but, having an ally with many toys is concerning and needs contingency planning? USA does the same for Australia.Let alone more funding will be required in the budget!

"makes them nothing to us"Who is "us"?What are we without the USA? Vulnerable?

IanM:

21 Feb 2014 11:51:59am

I agree Sotopanna, the exercises last month involving three Chinese naval units on our northwest approaches between Indonesia and Australia changes our strategic environment. We can assume that it will have focussed the minds of Indonesia's military as well. I suspect that this has been why the Indonesian military's response to recent asylum seeker issues has been much less vocal than the political response, even allowing for election year posturing.

As the Chinese develop their ability to project force beyond the South China Sea, the Indonesians will be looking for more military cooperation with Australia as a counterbalance. The Indonesians are little if any military threat to Australia and from our point of view are a useful geographic buffer between ourselves and an increasingly aggressive super power. It might be time for General Morrison to reread the textbooks on 1942 and think about the possibilities.

Zing:

21 Feb 2014 1:07:24pm

Dubious. Plenty of pacific nations were neutral in WW2. The Japanese bombed and invaded them anyway.

Even if Australia had been neutral, it's logical to assume the Japanese would have done exactly the same thing. We had a ton of resources and industry. Japan needed both and our neutrality wouldn't have changed this.

Our defence force currently lacks the capacity to take on another country by itself, let alone defend our own country by itself. Our greatest defence is our alliance with the USA and Europe. Without that, we'd have next to nothing.

But given your other posts on constitutional issues, you view our country as being illegitimate. If an enemy nation invaded us, you might even see it as an opportunity to see our government destroyed. Is that why you'd prefer an end to our military alliance with America?

dubious the third:

21 Feb 2014 1:35:53pm

Australia needs to maintain friendship with our major trading nations.Australia needs to legitimise itself as a neutral country that respects the Sovereignty of others.Unlike WW1 and 2, when Australia going to war was the call of Britain, these days, if the US attacks any major Asian nation, Australia will get bombed, purely because it is a major staging post for the US military. What a pathetic vassal of empire is this settler state which fails to recognise the Sovereigns of it's own lands.

Zing:

Australia needs to remember that "customer" and "friend" are not the same thing.

Given that most Asian nations lack intercontinental bombers, the possibility of us being bombed by an Asian nation is fairly remote.

America is on good terms with most Asian nations bar China. So it would appear these nations are unlikely to be bombed by America. Not unless they bombed Australia first for some reason and America responded to our calls for help.

As for us? The indigenous people have no sovereign power which they can impose in this country. So why recognise them as sovereigns? They clearly aren't.

big joe :

21 Feb 2014 2:09:59pm

Please Dubious, at least read the history of the defence of Darwin before posting. "18 months to do anything"? where did you get that, from the US haters handbook? One of the major sinkings during the first raid was a US Destroyer. The first american fighter aircraft arrived within weeks of the first raid.

dubious the third:

21 Feb 2014 4:52:39pm

Gee big joe, you've been reading too much US storytelling.As it so happens, I prefer to trust the writing of my father, even though his immediate account was confiscated, he did manage to rewrite it, and when on leave in 1943 stashed it, only to be revealed in 1995 after the 50 year War Secret expired.But hey, as telephone operator, what would he have known hey.

big joe :

21 Feb 2014 6:15:44pm

So dubious, all those graves with the names of US pilots on them who died defending Darwin just after the initial raid are fake, obviously some dastardly plot to change history. With all due respect to your father, if he said that US help didn't arrive in Darwin for 18 months after the initial Japanese attack I can only surmise that he was either mistaken or like you was a US hater. Face it dubious, the weight of historical evidence to the contrary of your statement is overwhelming.

dubious the third:

21 Feb 2014 5:00:24pm

This vessel is the Neptuna, it is clear that the flames are fast getting out of control and the ship will be lost, but still the unnamed heroes battle on. On the inner side of the jetty, the other vessel, the Barossa, although on fire amidships, is not in such a sorry plight, and the naval tug, Wato, is making attempts to get towing ropes aboard, to enable the burning ship to be towed clear of the jetty, but in vain.

Other vessels in the harbour have not escaped the unwelcome attention of the Jap planes, the transporter, Zealander, and the US freighter Meigs have been hit and are sinking, while near the last named ship, is the Mauna Loa, another US vessel, around which bombs are falling, and it is clear to see that she will be sunk. Near misses on the tanker, British Motorist have caused enough damage to cause her to heel over and sink, the majority of her crew reaching safety.The Port Mar, a US transport, has been bombed and machine-gunned and the damage to her after hold is considerable. Her skipper, Captain Williams, to save her from following her fellows in the harbour, has run her aground on Leper Island.

When the raiders were first sighted, the gun crews of the two American destroyers, Preston and Peary, closed to action stations, the former steaming out to sea in an abortive attempt to lure the Jap away from the other vessels in the harbour, and as she leaves the proximity of the other vessels, her guns spit viciously at the roaring planes above, and a dive bomber makes her his target. She is hit in the stern by an incendiaryand flames leap skywards. Her Captain, with amazing presence of mind, orders full speed astern, and the fire is soon extinguished by the waves caused by the bluntness of the stern pushing through water, and the Preston continues on her way out to sea, not bothering to use the boom gate entrance, just steaming right over the boom net.

(It was later discovered, that when she reached Sydney, three of the crew had been trapped in the after magazine when it was flooded, and were drowned.)

The Peary has opened fire with all her guns, but is hit by bombs and drifting, out of control and slowly sinking by the stern. Flames leap savagely around her funnels, but her puny guns still bark defiance at the enemy. As she drifts with the tide, she nears

dubious the third:

21 Feb 2014 5:39:12pm

Darwin airfields was destroyed, as were all planes on the ground, bar one that got into the air and was shot down.I don't know where you get your story from big joe, but there was no-where for planes to land for months after feb 1942. The 70 or so subsequent bombing raids made sure of that.

big joe :

21 Feb 2014 7:05:11pm

I can read history too dubious, so how's this.The initial raid on Darwin occurred on the 19/2/42.The first encounter between USAAF (United States Army Airforce) and the Japanese occurred on the 1/4/42 (not 18 months as you stated) when P40Es of the 9th Pursuit Squadron USAAF from the 34 mile strip fought an air battle over Darwin.On the 25/4/42 a major air battle was fought over Darwin between the 49th Pursuit Group USAAF and the Japanese.The USAAF was very active in the aerial defence of the NT, they did not use the old Darwin airfield and built their own at places like Bachelor and the 34 mile and many others.The 70 or so raids that you speak of did occur but were inevitably beaten off with major losses to the Japanese.

Mike of Perth:

21 Feb 2014 6:28:55pm

I think you need to go back and study the history books! Dawin was bombed (19/2/1942) to prevent AUSTRALIA and her allies (at the time we were part of the ABDACON) responding in a meaningful way to the Japanese invasion of Timor and Java, not because it was a staging post for the Yanks!In fact of the 57 ships in the harbour at the time of the attack 40 were Australian Navy, 4 U.S. Navy and 13 non military. And as for the rest of your retort what about the Battle of the Coral Sea (4-8/5/1942) or the American Engineers and Anti Aircraft Gunners who fought and died beside the Australians at Milne Bay (25/8/1942).If you look further back into the 1930's we sold all our scrap iron to Japan because we didn't view them as a Military threat as they had been good Allies of ours durring "The War to end all Wars". Read CHINAAs for those who don't view Indonesia as an issue how about asking the families of the people killed killed durring the invasion of East Timor? or ask an ex Serviceman who fought them in Borneo in the 1960's."Those how fail to learn from the past are condemed to repeat it"

General Disarray:

21 Feb 2014 10:23:17am

Another reality is our population ratio with Indonesia at ten to one.

'Superiority of numbers is the most common element in victory. . . . Superiority . . . can obviously reach the point where it is overwhelming. . . . It thus follows that as many troops as possible should be brought into the engagement at the decisive point.' Clausewitz

Soldier of Fortune:

Peter NQ:

21 Feb 2014 3:16:58pm

Ha Ha, that quote from clauswitz was probably relevant in 1805, when the mass conscript armies of France, swept aside the small, professional armies of the states of europe, but unfortunately, Clauswitz did not contend with the Machine Gun, and that line of resoning became outdated in the first couple of months of 1914 (100 years ago).

Since then technology has seen the advangate of pure numbers vanish. Look at the total destruction wrecked on the USSR by an outnumbered Germany, so much so that by war's end 20% of their fighting force was female and what sunk the Germans was the weak strategic doctrine that was imposed by their Supreme Command, particularly the "hold ground at all costs" approach.

Numbers are not superior, technology and doctrine is superior, and I am glad to say that the only threat posed militarily to Australia is by the PRC, something that can be balanced by a remilitarised Japan, USA, Australia Bloc.

Zing:

21 Feb 2014 12:29:55pm

In other words, they can kick our ass easily. All they lack is transport boats and sufficient incentive.

Face facts. If Indonesia had the capacity to get even 10% of their forces over the Timor sea, the invasion force would have enough strength to overpower our entire defence force without much trouble. While it would be difficult for them to defeat our nation entirely, it would be easy for them to occupy significant assets in the north without fear of being forced off them.

Not to mention the fact that we'd have plenty of fifth column issues in our country. Indonesian citizens. Islamic radicals. Left-wingers who will demand our forces to retreat the moment we suffer ten casualties. It'll be a ugly situation.

Rest assured. Our military probably is probably working on the assumption that Indonesia is our greatest threat. Given climate change and resource scarcity, it's almost a certainty we'll clash with them the future.

Dove:

21 Feb 2014 1:03:29pm

Fantasy stuff. With no motive nor means, Indonesia are no greater threat than Brasil. They couldn't get much over the Timor Sea, and any that did would run out of food and water in days. Unless they landed in the wet, when they'd be flooded in. Witness the Kangaroo Exercises. The whole thing would be as pointless as Gallipoli with much the same outcome. Thinking that muslims would somehow want to join an Inonesian invasion shows a shallowness of analysis and should be confined to schoolboy creative writing classes. Your so-called left wingers ran this country during two world wars.

Zing:

21 Feb 2014 6:37:25pm

Indonesia has the motive. The means is just a matter of time and money.

If Indonesia invaded us, there would be a real possibility that some Islamic Australians may decide to take up arms to support an invasion force led by a muslim country. In some cases, religion will trump patriotism. Regional conflicts in Africa and the Middle East have shown this.

And even if every Islamic Australian remained loyal to Australia (and I'm sure most would), we'd still have a large number of Indonesian migrants, Islamic migrants or Australians with Indonesian relatives who might not see things the same way.

You might think my analysis is "schoolboy creative writing". But your analysis seems to have a dangerous lack of imagination. Luckily, our military experts are expected to explore the possibilities you dismiss.

Applaudanum:

"Indonesia had the capacity to get even 10% of their forces over the Timor sea, the invasion force would have enough strength to overpower our entire defence force without much trouble."

What rot! What are the Indonesian Army going to do once they make it here? Which desert are they going to march across in full battle regalia first? What air-strike protection methods are they going to employ whilst making their way over?

Zing:

21 Feb 2014 2:42:00pm

Agreed. Many nations have been crushed over the centuries. And more than a couple of those nations were surprised when it happened.

A couple of decades before the fall of the Roman Empire, I'm sure plenty of citizens in Rome were scoffing in their wine in the same way. The barbarian hordes? How can they possibly reach Rome? The fools can't even march in a straight line.

And they were right......up until the day the barbarian hordes learned how to march.

Nell:

21 Feb 2014 5:07:37pm

Completely agree with you about the Australia arrogance problem but Jimmy we have to become a bit more rational about our relationship with Indonesia.

It continues to be an ally of the US, a lot of their military personnel ( especially top brass) have been trained in the States universities and military colleges and many also trained here in Australia.

The intercultural ties have become stronger and stronger over the last three decades though they particularly flourished during the Keating era. Many Indonesian students study in Australia alongside ours who study at their universities as well.

I simply cannot accept the casual suggestions around an Indonesian invasion. It just doesn't seem like a sensible proposition.

Ben:

Victor :

21 Feb 2014 3:26:11pm

You have said it all, and in a few words, Ben. Indonesia is no more of a threat to Australia than we are to them.

When I was teaching Indonesian language in an Australian high school about 20 years ago, there were comments like "why do they need to learn Indonesian? So we can tell them where the police station is when they come to invade us?"...I don't think that sort of thinking is very far from the surface even today and although there is a bit of a rough spot in our relationship at present, I have a lot of confidence in it's future.

The direction of our military seems to be in a supportive role, and particularly for the antics of the Americans.

Graham Bell:

21 Feb 2014 7:00:17pm

There are two photos you should look at, Ben. Both taken in 1954. One shows the highly-trained, superbly-equipped, brilliantly-led French forces marching OUT .... and the victorious Viet Minh forces marching IN.

Now what were you saying about "but their lack of equipment, training and inability to project any significant force across the Timor Sea makes them nothing to us".

Never, never underestimate the other chap's resolve or resourcefulness or cunning or sheer ruthlessness.

So let's just try to stay on good terms with our next-door neighbour - so we don't have to have our curiosity satisfied the hard way..

Sotopanna:

21 Feb 2014 10:03:46am

"For an army man, General Morrison spends a lot of time thinking about the sea "

With the defense forces engage in a war against unfortunates escaping Taliban assassination at home, it is real for the General to talk of the massive expense of this political event which must absorb a considerable part of its budgetary allocation.

The Chinese have used the incompetent intrusions by the Navy into Indonesian sovereignty to side with Indonesia and further accentuate a need to spend funds on this new equipment.The coverage which revealed that the Chinese used a conference on Human Rights to diffuse their actions by throwing our treatment of refugees at our representatives may indicate a much more strident China towards Australia?But the presence of Chinese Navy on our northern boundary would surely have the Army looking for bigger and better toys to address this new challenge.The influence on immigration policy on defense expenditure has surely raised an awareness that predictions about China are materializing before their time and need to be countered, NOW.It gives Defense good grounds to demand more, not less from the Budget.Aren't they also funding and facilitating the delivery of Australian owned orange life boats ($70,000 each) for fortunate Indonesian fishermen?

leafygreens:

What are we going to do if the Chinese go for a sail in our territories? Ask them not to? Like the UN report on North Korea, it will be brushed aside.

The chinese are flexing their muscles. They have our economy in a squirrell grip. They say jump, we are going to have to learn to say 'how high?'.... in mandarin.

They are throwing squid ink at us over human rights, but its to prove a point... so we lose face when we realise our opinion of them doesn't count anymore...

I suppose at least we are still worthy of humiliation. A weak enemy is below contempt. What have we got that they have to respect?

We are only 23million people rattling around a big empty continent, who don't have the required ruthless streak to go against any of our self imposed rules, even for our own self interest.

If they decided they wanted our resources by force, we've got nothing bigger than a destroyer and millions of kms of coastline to protect. Same problem if they armed up our neighbours. And our special friends the Americans aren't the only strong kid in the playground anymore.

Malachi Martin:

Zing:

21 Feb 2014 12:38:50pm

Australia is a continent surrounded by water. As a result, there are two overriding threats to our national security:

1. Indonesia;2. Uncontrolled boat migration.

Our army and air force is being organised to respond to the first threat. The reason that our navy is being used for stopping the boats is to ensure that they're up to the task when the second threat reaches crisis proportions.

On your last point, it's understandable that Indonesia might get sick of our boats entering their waters. After all, Indonesian boats have been violating our waters to dump migrants on our shores for almost a decade and it certainly annoys us.

Alpo:

21 Feb 2014 7:50:18pm

Zing,Australia is surrounded by air, therefore their is an extremely serious threat that an invasion by Chinese Indian, Malay, Singaporean, American, Canadian, British.... specialised workers and businessmen landing on our airports with proper visas will totally slaughter our workplace defence forces... Zing, what the heck are you doing here, go back to work and defend your trench!

Peter:

21 Feb 2014 1:22:09pm

Get real The Indonesians know exactly what we are doing around the boat issue and accept that this in no way represents a hostile act toward them, just a means of reversing the flow of middle eastern intending immigrants travelling to Australia via Indonesia. All comments on this matter from them is all piss and wind blowing around for local political objectives

gunner :

21 Feb 2014 1:33:16pm

virgil, Indonesia is not a military threat to us, it is true that their army is substantially bigger than ours but they do not possess the means to land it on our shores and sustain it in any expeditionary operation therefore the size of their army is really not an issue. During my time in the army I went on several exercises in the far north with elements of the Indonesian military and while I found them suitable for low intensity operations such as putting down civil unrest they are by no means in the same league as our regular army or our reserve units for that matter. They are poorly armed and trained and their supply system leaves much to be desired. Their navy mainly comprises old East German navy ships that they purchased from Germany after it reunited and they spend most of their time tied up to docks for want of spare parts. Although their airforce has a small number of modern aircraft these also suffer from a lack of spare parts and modern weapon systems. They don't have an in flight refuelling capability and because of that could not sustain combat operations over the Australian mainland. I would think that given these limitations the last thing Indonesia would want is a shooting war with us.

big joe :

21 Feb 2014 5:03:13pm

Good post Gunner, the only credible threat that the Indonesians can present is their two ageing submarines which don't get much sea time due to the cost of operating and maintaining them, they are in the process of obtaining more submarines with the eventual aim of having a fleet of 10 to 12 although their ability to operate and maintain what are essentially very expensive and complex machines is doubtful.

Rhonda:

21 Feb 2014 7:56:28pm

"Predicting the military operations of the future is an impossible task but it's pretty clear climate change, peacekeeping and humanitarian and disaster relief work will be among the primary areas of engagement."

It's beliefs like these which set General Morrison apart from his peers and possibly at odds with this government, who have created the illusion of the necessity to 'declare war' on asylum seekers (aka 'illegals') - all designed with special appeal for voters such as those who reside in western Sydney.

pigman:

Alpo:

21 Feb 2014 9:01:30am

Very many thanks for this article, Michael. After the political use of the military by the Abbott Government with regard to the asylum seekers issue (a truly worrying precedent), it is refreshing to open this little window into the true reality of our Armed Forces, which are a central component of our Freedom and Democracy. I strongly support the idea of modernising the psychology of the army to prevent it from becoming a cultural ghetto of ideas about Australia that have no match whatever with the broader reality of the country. You mention General Morrison intervention regarding women in the army, but I would also strongly stress the issue of inter-racial relationships and multi-cultural issues within the army. Many non-Caucasian Australians may want to join the army, many non-Anglo-Celtic ones may also want to do the same and their contribution should be considered as one that comes from a Fellow Australian like any other. Moreover, I agree that the role of our armed forces will also increase in the area of peace-keeping around the world, hence a broader cultural perspective within the army will help our soldiers better face interactions with other cultures overseas. I would love to see our peace-keepers cheered when they arrive to a foreign country and emotionally and gratefully farewelled when they leave after their mission is accomplished... and perhaps, after leaving the army, some of them may even return to those countries as workers for international humanitarian agencies....

Malachi Martin:

21 Feb 2014 10:59:34am

Absolute nonsense. Politically correct tripe. Few non-Anglo-Saxons will join the Army anyway because it would mean giving something back to the country when they are more accustomed to take, take, take.

Greg:

Alpo:

21 Feb 2014 12:23:59pm

"Few non-Anglo-Saxons will join the Army anyway because it would mean giving something back to the country when they are more accustomed to take, take, take."... Gees, Malachi, and you call my post "nonsense"? In fact, my post was partly inspired by casually crossing my path the other day with an Australian soldier (in uniform) of obvious Asian descent.... I wish him well, and to you I wish you used your brain in a more constructive way for your country.

Peter the Lawyer:

21 Feb 2014 1:27:53pm

Alpo

Your last comment is very instructive. Why does one have to use one's brain for one's country. Surely we use our brains for ourselves and our own? But your vision is obviously a collective on where a person's principal identity is determmined by his country or the minority of which he is part. heaven forfend that two women should think differently about something or that one gay man doesn't always see things in the same light as all the others.

Groupthink is not a pretty thing, Alpo. It has led to much sorrow and tyranny in the world. All from the left, I might add.

Alpo:

21 Feb 2014 2:44:33pm

"Why does one have to use one's brain for one's country.... Groupthink is not a pretty thing"... I never mentioned groupthink, although I don't see any problem with people sharing similar values and therefore converging on the analysis of specific issues (we see "groupthink" of that kind all the time among the Coalition supporters here for instance). My comment is explained by my seeing each person as an agent at various levels: a) the personal level, and b) the social level. You and me are individuals, different individuals, but we happen to share the same country, so we have to learn to live together (I obviously totally exclude the troglodytic alternative that we may grab a baseball bat each and go hard at each other until only one is left standing...). As soon as you have 2 people in the same place you have immediately defined a simultaneous dual individual and collective space. Given that we use our brain to think, decide and act, we unavoidably also use that brain to decide on matters that go beyond the personal and that expand into the social. My post also added something else, an ethical dimension, by making clear that our contribution to the social (the country) should be hopefully "constructive" = beneficial to all individuals.Sorry for the long explanation, but I am sure that you will get the idea.

Cassandra:

21 Feb 2014 1:40:20pm

Hi Malachi,

You seem intimately acquainted the motivations/aspirations of many 'non-caucasian' Aussies. As I've done with other 'conservative' commentators on this topic, I express my total amazement and wonder at such omniscience...Get back to me with any supporting material.Cheers,Cass

Malachi Martin:

21 Feb 2014 2:37:28pm

Sure, Cass. Just look up Wikipedia. "A high percentage of ADF personnel are drawn from the Anglo-Celtic portion of Australia's population." Of course it carries on to imply that the defence force, is "unrepresentative", and we have to do much better at recruiting other ethnicities in the future. Well, if they don't apply to join, Cass, I guess they just don't want to be in the Army. But that must be the fault of White, Anglo-Saxon Males, hey?

Alphamikefoxtrot:

21 Feb 2014 11:59:18am

As usual, everything Alpo says is either woefully out of date or just wrong. How has this Government used the military in more of a political way than the last Government? Minister Smith was despised by the military for politicising more than anytime in history. And of course, everything he says about what is going on in the Army has been going on for years and was definitely not started by Morrison. His role in modernising Army's culture was only picked up due to the publicity of the ADFA Skype and other recent issues. His predecessors were doing exactly the same thing. Our peacekeepers are very highly trained in cultural interaction and are very well received and treated overseas - well that's been my experience deploying on three humanitarian or peacekeeping operations.

Alpo:

21 Feb 2014 1:26:45pm

"Minister Smith was despised by the military for politicising more than anytime in history."... Any example, Alpha? It was "the military" or just some within the "military". It was the alleged "politicising" that was rejected by those critical to Smith or was it the fact that it came from Labor?... etc. etc. My impression is that Smith was a pretty solid minister, including in his role within Defence.

I am extremely glad that your experience in the military supports what I really wish for them. I am not in the military, so I cannot talk from direct experience. But I am a citizen and I am happy to contribute my little opinion to this debate and hope that our soldiers are continued to be seen as a positive, peace-keeping presence around the world.

Peter the Lawyer:

Abbott Voter:

Why do we need such a massive army now? Clearly it has too many generals and not got enough work to do with the generals taking on the work of civilians and running aspects of the Navy.

'Tis time you took the knife to the Army in a big way Hockey. That will help you get the massive increase in unemployment Abbott and you are seeking Joe and make the recession Australia does not need to have a certainty.

GJA:

21 Feb 2014 10:13:43am

Agreed. A standing army presupposes an existential threat, or constitutes one. While some measure of expertise in the use of the kinds of equipment to be employed in a military action is not unworthwhile, there is no present or likely threat to Australia. So why do we maintain a standing defense force? Other than the more advanced specialists, such a fighter pilots, where individual expertise is at the core, the majority of the personnel are, outside of the military context, unskilled, and, as Morrison fears, ghettoised. They see themselves and are perceived as something different from the civilian population they ostensibly serve, but they are little more than public servants at best. Insofar as it is employed as a career path for otherwise underprivileged youth, it's also a form of welfare. The budget could be better spent.

Another recent Drum piece pointed out that weapons procurement could be conducted for a substantial savings by purchasing equipment overseas instead of building it here, in which case massive amounts of money could be spent on education and improving opportunity for more direct participation in society, investment in industries to produce valuable jobs, healthcare, etc.

No need to gut Medicare, to reduce spending on public education, and erode pension eligibility. Keep the military small, the budget low. Spend the money where it belongs.

Peter the Lawyer:

21 Feb 2014 1:34:22pm

But donh'[t you want to support local manufacturing?

I thought everyone here on the Drum from the left all wanted us to keep a manufacturing base because it would be useful in times of war. So you are saying that the miltary manufacturing we do have should be shut down.

I would say that protecting our borders is onre of the few cardinal roles of government. health and education are things that each of us can buy. They don't government spending as much as defence.

Zing:

pigman:

21 Feb 2014 4:12:52pm

Yes, ary is short for hairy, you just drop the 'H'. Plenty of ary immigunt druglords roaming Sydneys west, peddling their heroin cigarettes to children.But don't worry, Tony's sending the navy in to tow them back home.

taxedorff:

21 Feb 2014 5:38:13pm

very true and if we take a leaf out of joes book of slash and burn we cant afford the entitlement of armed forces and those days are now way to expensive . that will save us 4% at least of gdp. joe and tony have told us we need to cut all the waste and lets be real armed forces are like cars you spend the money and start loosing the value. in joes mindset maybe the only way out is for us to rent out our armed forces to make the money for them to pay their way.........

the yank:

21 Feb 2014 9:29:40am

interesting article, thanks.

I spoke recently with a woman that served for some time in the navy. She went into some detail about the male ethos that drove that branch of the armed services and how impossible it was for a women to not only survive.

She also went on to say that sexual abuse was not only a problem for women but that male on male rape was also a major problem.

APM:

21 Feb 2014 10:19:41am

Reflecting changing societal norms should also take into account that women are more sexually aggressive than they used to be, and casual sex is normal. The most cited recent case of sexual misconduct was consensual sex that ended in ungentlemanly behaviour. I don't know if the army should be in the business of disciplining cads and bounders. The women was treated badly but did make poor choices.

the yank:

21 Feb 2014 11:22:45am

What by being in a place where she could be raped?

The woman I spoke with had direct experience and she relayed that experience to me and I to you. Now you can choose to ignore that information if you want but unless you have spoken to someone in the armed forces and can relay that information then what is the point of your comment?

GrumpiSkeptic:

Perhaps she did made a very wrong choice to engage in sexual activities with bastards! However, I always thought a gentleman NEVER talk about his sexual exploits?

Consensual sex is between two adults. It is a pact between the two. When you break that trust, you are a bastards or a bitch.

By the way, would anyone want to serve along side those unreliable characters in a real war? I bet they will soon switch side as the heat is turned up, or begin to sing too easily if captured by their enemies.

Malachi Martin:

21 Feb 2014 10:50:44am

It is ridiculous that women are allowed to serve in our armed forces, except in support roles. This is just another example of how our Marxist cultural elites has warped our natural human destinies. They are bent on masculizing our women and feminizing our men. I suppose women in the Navy is not too bad. Our Navy has never been any good anyway.

Lehan Ramsay:

gunner :

21 Feb 2014 5:16:20pm

yank, for every person who has a horror story about their experience while a member of the military there are many more who enjoyed their time, Both my wife and myself served for a long time in the army as did two of my sons, of my five daughters two served in the RAAF and two served in the RAN. Our total combined service is seventy years, during that time none of us witnessed or heard of these rapes which you say were common, how do you explain that? There was isolated incidents of sexual misconduct which were in no way condoned and the perpetrators were always dealt with harshly. Now I'm not about to question the veracity of this woman you say you spoke to but did you make any effort to verify whether or not she had actually served in the RAN or did you accept what she said at face value because it suits your well known hatred of the military?

R Supwood:

21 Feb 2014 10:02:42am

The general can afford to be honest as he retires soon. Honesty is not appreciated in the forces or amongst political sources connected and superior to them. Rarely can the services honestly refuse duty because of conscience. A rare case is the Curragh "mutiny" where the officers got away with it. Navy mutinies usually attracted severe punishments, though vital reform often followed. It would be an impossible hope to have a sufficiently independent military able to publish and discuss openly, before committing to blind obedience. Imagine if the seduced semi-conscriptees of the USA military had openly stated that the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan was totally wrong, immoral and cynicaly business profiteering driven, they might have been enabled to be enightened, and, refused to serve when the defence of their nation was not in the least required. Lives, money, decency, morals and ethics, history itself, would have been saved. But, it did not happen.

Greg:

Peter the Lawyer:

21 Feb 2014 1:39:05pm

It is unfortunate that Malachi referred to violence, but his main point is very sound. It is people like Miowarra who are the trolls on this issue.

WHat Malachi is saying that it is ridiculous to think that the army is 'independent.' If it were then there would no stopping it from taking the law into its own hands. The military is subservient to the Government, and is important that it is.

R Supwood:

21 Feb 2014 2:37:15pm

What childish rubbish. History clearly notes that those such as Caesar and Napoleon, let alone the modern right wing ratbag murderers, took the military in hand, then the state, then attempted to take the world. Praetorian Guard-like assassination is always necessary, driven by a refusal to obey the irrational and indecent. Lawyer my ring.

blax5:

21 Feb 2014 11:14:22am

There is a very fine line between defence and militarism. We see the differences being whipped up in so many places as if someone is itching for another war. The price in blood, tears, and treasure is high, so we need to be extremely vigilant that we are not dragged into other people's conflicts again. It's not worth it.

Proud thinking Australia:

21 Feb 2014 11:18:58am

Unlikely feminist hero or just a normal respectful Australia man of his age?There are plenty of respectful normal servicemen in the ADF. Would you believe there are plenty of men not burning the hands of would be boats arrivals at sea too?Who would believe a highly trained professional Australian Army General would be able to read and cite highbrow literary quotes when specifically addressing the Lowy Institute? Is not high level military theory taught at ADFA and his business to know as Chief?Michael why add your anti-ADF bias surprise to David's abilities and competency?

Are you detecting a general unfair smearing and underestimation of the Australian Defense Forces colouring this journal entry regarding David Morrison. I am.

Proud thinking Australian:

21 Feb 2014 2:39:30pm

The main reason he will be remembered for his frank video address is because of consistent superficial treatment, ignorance and contempt left leaning news media outlets including this said service, have for the ADF. Given this heavy baggage, a probe into defense is reduced to just an establishment evil, best not elaborated on.

RC:

21 Feb 2014 11:24:23am

We need to go back to a part-time "Territorial" style Defence Force much like the Defence Militia that Israel has, one where the defence reaction is led by our equivalent of Mossad.We need to close all foreign military bases in our territory, including that which is within our marine "Economic Zone".The top personnel of the Defence Force need to realise that our Armed Forces are not their toy to play with, and put warmongering as their mantra for existence on the back burner.We have too many VC's, all victims of this outdated, outmoded warmongering mantra.Every home thus will need to have at least one adult family member that has done such "territorial" training in the most uptodate effective defence systems and mechanisms for at least 3 months every 2 years.Every home needs to have basic defence weaponry in house, under lock and key, for use when called upon by the Federal Government, when our territory has been invaded.The new SAS and Seals are our first line of Defence, and need to be an adequately paid permanent force.The new mantra of our Defence Force is that it functions under UNO Human Rights Covenants long endorsed by our Federal Governments, that is, torture is OUT.Under this new mantra our Defence Force may not be aligned with any other State's Defence Force that uses torture.

MJLC:

21 Feb 2014 12:03:24pm

If nothing else, the General impresses me with his ability to build on existing Defence Force skills with his amphibious vessels agenda. By definition, in order to launch them you need to have already entered someone else's territorial waters.

On a related matter, has it been established yet whether one naval commander armed only with an atlas entered Indonesian waters six times, or whether six naval commanders entered Indonesian waters once each? I only ask because when I was out on the roads yesterday there was a Collins Class submarine stuck on Canning Highway blocking two lanes of traffic. One wonders how von Clausewitz would strategise his way out of that one.

gunner :

21 Feb 2014 7:47:07pm

MJLC, gee whizz mate, you have a very low opinion of the navigational skills of the senior service, might I suggest that a person of your obviously superior mental capabilities do the country a favour and toddle off down to the recruiting office, join the navy and then you can show them the correct way to navigate a ship as you are obviously an expert. I'm sure the navy would appreciate your expertise.

Lehan Ramsay:

Patrick53:

21 Feb 2014 12:23:36pm

There is one very major problem with being in the armed forces and that is that you are under the command and control of the idiot politicians of the day .

You dont have to look to far back for examples of wars and battles we shoud never have been in to realise that you are not controlled by your military commander but some bum sitting on a Canberra seat a long, long way from the action and the danger.

Peter the Lawyer:

21 Feb 2014 1:42:12pm

It is true that politicians have the ultimate say. But would you have it any other way? Would you have some unelected General taking the troops off to war without permission from our elected politicians?

Lehan Ramsay:

21 Feb 2014 1:01:49pm

I remember yesterday I suggested that we should be able to vote in American elections seeing as how they want to be Topsy. Today I'm thinking nah, we should just be able to veto their their candidates. Nah, can't work with that one. That'd be good.

Sunray:

21 Feb 2014 1:15:28pm

Contrary to popular belief, the Regular Army has been well ahead of the pack, in that they had Captain Reg Saunders as a Company Commander in 3RAR on operations in Korea. He was much loved by his soldiers and he was a full blood aborigine. The list goes on, but the Army also had Female soldiers attached to Infantry and Special Forces patrols, in order to very successfully, gather Intel from female civilians, circa 2010. Efficiency and Effectiveness is what the Army is usually pursuing, not verbose philosophical posturing.

Malachi Martin:

Captain Col:

21 Feb 2014 4:03:07pm

"Climate change ... will be among the primary areas of engagement".

Bulltish! Shall we teach the army to sandbag the coast against sea level rises? How about deploying the army's giant refrigerators to prevent the poofteenth of a degree temperatures might rise in a century? Or we could get the RAAF to tow clouds into place to prevent the sun getting too hurty. Every ADF member could hand in their rifles and be issued with palm fronds to cool the world. I know! What about we just forget about climate change and let the climate do what it wants? And let the ADF get on with ADF business ... war fighting, and preparing for war fighting!!!

leafygreens:

21 Feb 2014 5:03:14pm

Considering the army often does disaster relief, I'm not sure what your humour is attempting to suggest.

Climate change will cause civil unrest and an increase in movement of displaced persons. It will cause territorial disputes, and in many place that will deteriorate into armed conflict for control of water, food and living space in areas still viable for human habitation.When extreme weather events happen, donor countries often pledge their standing military for operations.

So, at the very least we will be called on to peacekeep in war torn famine zones, or render overseas aid after a natural disaster event in the form of security, medical and logistcs support... like we do now, but more 'coz of the climate change...

Malachi Martin:

21 Feb 2014 6:44:18pm

I cannot fault your facts in the first two-thirds of the post, leafygreen, but the real question is, "Should we be doing that?" I am all for a fortress Australia mentality now that I have seen the campaigns come and go in my lifetime. Korea, Malayan Emergency, Confrontation with Indonesia, Vietnam, etc., etc., etc. Even the younger people know the rest. The military claim they see threats well in advance, and commit our forces accordingly. I don't believe them now. What they are just doing is training our troops at a very high cost in lives, and conforming to a global agenda over which Australians seem to have little control. Forget the humanitarian tasks as well. Who helps us from outside when the chips are down?

GrumpiSkeptic:

21 Feb 2014 2:58:47pm

I quite like General Morrison, judging by his now rather famous "Get the Fu*k out" speech. I believe he is probably a deeper thinker too. Admittedly, I am rather shallow minded as I usually associate military men with guns rather than brains.

As I tap on this keyboard, I have been thinking about the nastiness of wars. Yes, soldiers are there to take orders, regardless of how stupid the orders are!

Take the case of a recent death of one of our soldiers. He chose a lonely death in a land he had never been, an isolated mountain in the US, and he died in the freezing cold, alone! PTSD...What a nasty sickness. It is the by-product of exposure to extreme violence, either inflicted by self to others, and vice versa.

Now the wars we had to have are drawing to a close. What are we going to do with walking time bombs like that? Mind you, well trained military men, physically and mentally tough, will often choose not to admit any chink in their armour.

Soldier of Fortune:

21 Feb 2014 3:07:10pm

For crying out loud, a few years ago our military couldn't do diddly-poo off the coast of Fiji. The entire Australian Military force can fit into the Melbourne cricket ground and we'll still have enough seats left for the Collingwood cheer squad.

Adrian:

21 Feb 2014 3:59:23pm

'Predicting the military operations of the future is an impossible task but it's pretty clear climate change, peacekeeping and humanitarian and disaster relief work will be among the primary areas of engagement.'

That's a pretty controversial statement without supporting evidence. You say it's an impossible task and then predict away regardless. The primary area of engagement if the military for the last 10 years has been war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Who knows where the next conflict will be, but the primary responsibility of the military is defence and military action. Humanitarian tasks are a way to use the military when it isn't fully engaged elsewhere but not it's primary role.

Wonganella:

21 Feb 2014 4:13:33pm

It is true that there are few non Anglo- Celts in our armed forces just as it is true of the Police and the Emergency Services. The Army like other forces and services should not be contorting itself worrying about that. Instead of our services occupying themselves with this concern and constructing programmes to change that we should all ask ourselves and ask ethnic groups the question: Why is it so?

Nell:

21 Feb 2014 4:54:31pm

Listening to General Morrison's speech, I was struck by the tone which was respectful of his audience. He did not hold back on clear, explicit descriptions of the new strategic direction being very careful not to breach what needed to be suppressed.

General Morrisson clearly understands and communicates that Defence need to be an integral part of our community, owned and supported by the men and women of Australia who along with defence personnel vote in elections and pay their taxes and with our changing demographic.

For my ears he prosecuted the case of the extraordinary skills base that the Army and Defence in general cover and I was persuaded by his assurance of the commitment to the finest Australian values.

He inspired a confidence in me as a citizen that I have not felt from the present government in its military directions or attitude to the public.

Mike (the other one):

21 Feb 2014 5:57:00pm

The implementation of cross cultural and racial employment in the ADF would have to be (if it isn't already) carried out in an extremely judicious manner. Several events that support this come to mind; US Army Officer Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a devout Muslim who killed 13 and injured 30 fellow soldiers on US soil at Fort Hood, Texas. Then there have been the many 'turncoat' insider killings in Afghanistan by Afghan military, some victims being Australian. These types of incidences must be extremely demoralising and destructive to military integrity. It also has to be duly considered what the soldier in the field thinks about some of these issues and their application. It's not all about politics, public perceptions and generals. A good rule of thumb for any leader before making decisions is to ask the man on the ground his opinion. Not to mention that for the soldier in a stress situation, emotions can run high and the last thing he wants or needs to be dealing with is crap decisions made by people not on the ground and away from the field.

Graham Bell:

21 Feb 2014 6:12:15pm

The surprise in Michael Brissenden's article made me laugh. The Hollywood meathead stereotypes of armed forces people, upon which so many opinions of service personnel in Australia are so carefully built, rarely exist in the real world.

Why wouldn't a soldier read Alfred Mahan's "The Influence of Sea Power on History"? Surely you wouldn't be as surprised if an immunologist or a civil engineer chose to read the works of Wilhelm von Humboldt or Thucydides or Lu Hsun (Lu Xun), would you? I'm glad though, that Soeren Kierkegaard, got only a mention; not exactly my favourite philosopher and I can't understand why anyone would bother reading his works; still, each to his own and General Morrison is quite capable of making his own choices of what to read.

Many of those with whom I served were accomplished poets, graphic artists, writers, musicians and a sculptor too (sadly, hindered by arthritis these days). We read a very wide range of authors and our off-duty conversations and robust discussions were on such a variety of topics that a casual eavesdropper might have imagined we were all a serious risk to national security.

No doubt some ignorant, obsequious, poorly-led boofheads do manage to sneak into the ADF from time to time - we saw that when bullies, gropers and sleazebags were exposed. The majority of service personnel are, rightly, disgusted with them and would hate to have their sisters or brothers, daughters or sons touched by these dishonourable scum-of-the-earth.

Soldier of Fortune:

21 Feb 2014 6:41:08pm

"If a boy from a village in Helmand province can trigger a device that will destroy your heavily protected modern armoured vehicle you are unlikely to find it useful to ask whether he is a state or non-state actor, or, whether he thinks he is in a war or in an insurgency."

Well, what do you expect from those people when you invade their country? ...A welcoming red carpet, brass band and rose petals thrown at you?

ru4real:

21 Feb 2014 7:19:59pm

My opinion is that the greatest threat to Australian democracy is the military's willingness to remain silent and complicit with government strategies which are clearly dubious, such as 'operation sovereign borders' which hasn't even been discussed in parliament.A code of secrecy is anathema to the proper functioning of a democracy.

Free trade is the oldest argument in federal politics and the issue that literally defined the federation era but opposition exists to the TPP, courtesy of the Investor-State Dispute Resolutions clause.